W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > June 2009

Re: [Core](PRD] safeness

From: Christian De Sainte Marie <csma@fr.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:47:25 +0200
To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFBF858DCE.3CAD29D4-ONC12575D2.002D33F9-C12575D2.0030498F@fr.ibm.com>
Hi Dave,

public-rif-wg-request@w3.org wrote on 11/06/2009 10:03:34:
> > You are right, the definition is not explicit enough on this aspect 
> > an earlier version, there was a note about whether we should remind 
> > readers that existentially quantified variables did not exist outside 
> > their existential formula, but I removed it without action, when Dave 
> > seemed to imply that it was clear enough).
> Don't blame me :-)

"When", not "because". The effective cause is my natural laziness.

> Actually I think that note would be helpful, though hardly critical.

In the definition of "safe rule", I replaced "all the variables that occur 
in [the condition] are bound in [the condition]", by "all the universally 
quantified variables that occur in [the condition] are bound in [the 
condition], and all the existentially quantified variables that occur in 
[the condition] are bound within the scope of their respective 

I will also describe more precisely how the existentially quantifiers are 
moved out of the way (esp. in the presence of negation, that is, for the 
PRD extension).


Sauf indication contraire ci-dessus:/ Unless stated otherwise above:
Compagnie IBM France
Siège Social : Tour Descartes, 2, avenue Gambetta, La Défense 5, 92400 
RCS Nanterre 552 118 465
Forme Sociale : S.A.S.
Capital Social : 609.751.783,30 ?
SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 02430
Received on Thursday, 11 June 2009 08:48:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:07:58 UTC